Ch. 13 Federal Courts

Section 1. The Federal Judiciary: Structure, Origins, and Number of Courts
The federal court system consists of three levels: district courts (trial courts with original jurisdiction), circuit courts of appeals (courts with appellate jurisdiction), and the Supreme Court (the highest court with both original and appellate jurisdiction). The Judiciary Act of 1789 established much of this structure.

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78, argued that the judiciary would be the “least dangerous” branch because it had “no influence over either the sword or the purse,” meaning it lacked enforcement and spending powers. He emphasized the importance of judicial independence, secured through lifetime appointments, to protect judges from political pressures and preserve the rule of law.

• There are 94 federal district courts nationwide, including at least one in every state and territory.

• There are 13 circuit courts of appeals; Texas falls in the 5th Circuit.

• The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is considered the most important appellate court because it handles many cases involving federal regulations and administrative agencies, and it has historically supplied a significant number of future Supreme Court justices.

• The Supreme Court has 9 justices: one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices. The size of the Court is set by Congress and has varied over time.

Jurisdiction Types:
The Supreme Court has two types of jurisdiction:

• Original jurisdiction, where the Court hears cases first (such as disputes between states or cases involving ambassadors). These are relatively rare and usually tried directly by the Supreme Court.

• Appellate jurisdiction, where the Court reviews decisions made by lower federal or state courts. Most Supreme Court cases come through appellate jurisdiction, involving review of legal questions rather than new evidence.

District courts primarily exercise original jurisdiction as trial courts, while circuit courts mainly exercise appellate jurisdiction reviewing district court decisions.

Section 2. Judicial Review and Marbury v. Madison
Judicial review allows courts to invalidate laws or executive actions that violate the Constitution. Although the Framers often considered the judiciary the weakest branch, Hamilton argued in Federalist No. 78 that judicial review was essential to prevent legislative overreach and protect constitutional rights. The landmark case Marbury v. Madison (1803) established judicial review as a practical power of the Court, elevating its role as a critical check on the other branches.

• Hamilton described the judiciary as the “least dangerous” branch but stressed its crucial role in upholding the Constitution.

• Judicial review balances government powers by ensuring laws conform to constitutional limits.

• The ruling in Marbury shifted the judiciary toward being a coequal branch in practice, even if the Framers had not fully envisioned it that way.

Section 3. Types of Cases and Legal Process
Federal courts hear two main types of cases: civil cases and criminal cases, each with distinct purposes, procedures, and burdens of proof.

• Civil cases involve disputes between private parties (individuals, organizations, or government entities) over legal duties and responsibilities. Common examples include contract disputes, property claims, or torts (such as negligence or personal injury). In civil cases, the plaintiff brings the lawsuit against the defendant seeking remedies like monetary damages or injunctions.

  • The standard of proof in civil cases is a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the plaintiff’s claim must be more likely true than not (just over 50% certainty). It is a lower burden of proof compared to criminal cases.

• criminal cases involve prosecution by the government against an individual or entity accused of violating criminal law. The government acts as the plaintiff, and the accused is the defendant. Criminal prosecutions can result in penalties like fines, imprisonment, or probation.

  • The burden of proof in criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt, requiring the prosecution to prove the defendant’s guilt to such a degree that no reasonable doubt remains in the mind of a rational person. This is the highest standard of proof in the legal system, reflecting the severe consequences of criminal convictions.

• Many cases in both categories resolve before trial through various alternative dispute resolution methods that help avoid lengthy court proceedings:

  • Settlement: Parties negotiate directly to reach a mutually acceptable agreement.

  • Mediation: A neutral third party facilitates discussions to help the disputing parties find a resolution.

  • Arbitration: A neutral third party hears arguments and evidence and makes a binding or nonbinding decision.

• These methods reduce court caseloads and promote efficient dispute resolution.

• Courts use precedent and the doctrine of stare decisis to guide rulings, ensuring legal consistency and predictability.

Section 4. Selecting and Confirming Federal Judges
Federal judges have lifetime appointments to maintain independence. The president nominates judges, typically considering qualifications and ideology, while the Senate confirms nominees. The process has grown increasingly politicized and contentious. Traditionally, senatorial courtesy influenced district court nominations but is less influential today.

• Most Supreme Court nominees come from backgrounds as federal appellate judges, law professors, or government legal officials, such as the Solicitor General—for example, Justice Elena Kagan.

• The American Bar Association (ABA) historically plays a significant role by evaluating and rating the professional qualifications of judicial nominees, categorizing them as “Well Qualified,” “Qualified,” or “Not Qualified.” These ratings have traditionally influenced presidential nominations and Senate confirmations.

• In recent years, especially under President Trump, there has been a deliberate move away from relying on the ABA’s evaluations of judicial nominees. Instead, Republican administrations have increasingly consulted conservative legal organizations—notably the Federalist Society—to identify and select nominees whose judicial philosophies align with their ideological goals.

• Increasing political polarization has led to more ideologically driven confirmation battles, often making confirmations highly partisan events.

• The Senate’s adoption of the nuclear option—first in 2013 for lower court and executive branch nominees, then in 2017 for Supreme Court nominees—eliminated the 60-vote filibuster threshold, allowing confirmations with a simple majority.

• This procedural change escalated partisan tensions, illustrated by several key disputes:

  • In 2016, the Republican-controlled Senate refused to hold hearings for President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, arguing the next president should fill the vacancy.

  • After President Trump took office, the Senate used the nuclear option to confirm Neil Gorsuch in 2017, overcoming filibuster threats and highlighting deep partisan divisions.

  • Similarly, the rapid confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett in 2020, just weeks before a presidential election, intensified controversy and underscored the breakdown of bipartisan norms.

• These events reflect how the nuclear option has lowered procedural barriers, allowing the majority party to confirm more ideologically extreme nominees without bipartisan support, thereby deepening Senate polarization.

• Judicial appointments significantly influence the Court’s ideological balance.

• Confirmation delays and battles reflect broader political conflict.

Section 5. Supreme Court Case Selection, Justiciability, and Decision-Making
The Supreme Court begins its process with petitions for writ of certiorari. Justices receive thousands of petitions annually, many reviewed by their law clerks who participate in a cert pool—a system where clerks summarize and recommend petitions for consideration to their respective justices.

To grant certiorari, at least four justices must agree—known as the Rule of Four—to hear the case, typically selecting cases involving significant federal questions or conflicts among lower courts.

The Court only hears cases that meet justiciability requirements, which serve as constitutional restraints on judicial power:

• Mootness: The case must present a live controversy; resolved or expired issues are dismissed.

• Collusion: Parties must have genuine adverse interests; the Court rejects contrived or cooperative cases.

• Political Questions: The Court avoids cases better resolved by the executive or legislative branches.

• Standing: Parties must have a personal stake in the outcome to bring suit.

• Jurisdictional Limits: Set by Article III and Congress, defining what cases federal courts may hear.

Once accepted, the Court reviews written briefs, including amicus curiae submissions, and holds oral arguments. Since COVID, time limits on oral arguments have become more flexible. The Court increasingly uses the emergency (shadow) docket to issue rulings without full briefing or argument, raising transparency concerns.

Justices meet in private conferences, discussing cases and voting in order of seniority—with the Chief Justice as the most senior voting first, followed by associate justices in descending order of seniority.

The Court issues various opinions: majority, concurring, dissenting, plurality, and per curiam. The Chief Justice manages deliberations, assigns opinion writing when in the majority, and strives to maintain the Court’s legitimacy through case management and public messaging.

Section 6. Judicial Philosophy and Politics

• Originalism: A judicial philosophy that interprets the Constitution based on the meaning understood at the time it was adopted.

  • Sub-philosophies within Originalism include:

    • Textualism: Focus on the exact wording of the Constitution or statutes.

      • Example Justice: Justice Antonin Scalia was a leading textualist.

    • Intentionalism: Seeks to understand the original intent of the framers.

      • Example Justice: Justice Clarence Thomas often applies original intent considerations.

    • Original Public Meaning: Interprets based on what the text would have meant to the public at the time of enactment.

      • Example Justice: Justice Neil Gorsuch is associated with this approach.

• Living Constitution: The view that the Constitution’s meaning can evolve and adapt to contemporary societal values and conditions.

  • Example Justices: Justice Stephen Breyer and Justice Sonia Sotomayor generally support this philosophy.

• Judicial Activism: Willingness to overturn precedent or broadly interpret the law. It is not inherently tied to political ideology.

• Judicial Restraint: Preference for following precedent (stare decisis) and limiting judicial policymaking.

• Justices balance legal philosophy, personal beliefs, and strategic considerations in decision-making.

Section 7. The Court’s Role in Policy and Constraints
Although the Supreme Court shapes policy through rulings, it lacks independent enforcement power and depends on the executive and legislature to implement decisions. The Court must weigh respect for democratic institutions against the protection of minority rights and often considers public opinion to maintain legitimacy.

• The Court’s power is limited by political and social constraints.

• Public acceptance heavily influences the Court’s effectiveness and willingness to issue controversial rulings.

• The Court has frequently tracked public opinion in its decisions, aiming to align rulings with broader societal views to preserve legitimacy. For example, the unanimous decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide, reflected growing public support for LGBTQ rights. Similarly, Brown v. Board of Education (1954) addressed rising public awareness and demand for racial equality in education.

• The Roberts Court’s growing use of the emergency (shadow) docket has drawn criticism for issuing significant rulings without full briefing or oral argument, raising concerns about transparency and the Court’s legitimacy.

• The Chief Justice and other justices engage in careful management of public messaging and case selection to protect the Court’s reputation and authority.

Section 8. Important Justices and Historical Firsts

Chief Justices:

• John Marshall (1801–1835):
  Established the Supreme Court’s authority as a coequal branch of government.
  Landmark cases: Marbury v. Madison (judicial review), McCulloch v. Maryland (federal power), Gibbons v. Ogden (commerce clause).
  Legacy: Strengthened federal government and judicial power.

• Earl Warren (1953–1969):
  Led a progressive Court that expanded civil rights and liberties.
  Landmark cases: Brown v. Board of Education (desegregation), Miranda v. Arizona (Miranda rights), Gideon v. Wainwright (right to counsel).
  Legacy: Instrumental in social reform and civil rights advancement.

• Warren E. Burger (1969–1986):
  Presided over a more conservative Court with mixed rulings.
  Landmark cases: Roe v. Wade (abortion rights), United States v. Nixon (executive privilege), Gregg v. Georgia (death penalty upheld).
  Legacy: Balanced social issues with law and order perspectives.

• William Rehnquist (1986–2005):
  Promoted judicial restraint and limited federal power.
  Landmark cases: United States v. Lopez (limited Commerce Clause), Bush v. Gore (2000 election), Printz v. United States (states’ rights).
  Legacy: Emphasized federalism and judicial conservatism.

• John Roberts (2005–present):
  Initially sought to maintain Court legitimacy but has overseen a shift to a strong conservative majority.
  Landmark cases: NFIB v. Sebelius (Affordable Care Act), Shelby County v. Holder (Voting Rights Act), Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health (overturned Roe).
  Legacy: Court increasingly willing to overturn precedent under conservative dominance.

Historic Associate Justices:

• Sandra Day O’Connor:
  First female Supreme Court Justice; known for pragmatic, moderate decisions and pivotal swing votes.

• Thurgood Marshall:
  First African American Justice; championed civil rights and civil liberties, with a strong legal legacy.

• Sonia Sotomayor:
  First Latina Justice; advocates for criminal justice reform and emphasizes empathy in her rulings.

• Ketanji Brown Jackson:
  First Black woman Justice; recognized for expertise in criminal justice and commitment to fairness and procedural justice.

Section 9. Ideological Spectrum of Current Supreme Court Justices (2025)

The ideological leanings of Supreme Court justices are often assessed using the Martin-Quinn scores, a widely recognized metric that places justices on a scale from -1 (most liberal) to +1 (most conservative). Based on the most recent data, here is the ideological positioning of each current justice:

Key Observations:

• Liberal Bloc: Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson form the Court's liberal wing, with Sotomayor being the most liberal.

• Moderate Conservative: Chief Justice Roberts occupies a centrist position, often serving as a swing vote in closely divided cases.

• Conservative Bloc: Justices Kavanaugh, Barrett, Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito constitute the conservative majority, with Alito being the most conservative.

• Recent Trends: While the conservative bloc has maintained a majority, Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett have occasionally aligned with liberal justices on certain issues, reflecting a nuanced approach to jurisprudence.

Section 10. Criticisms and Proposed Reforms of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court faces a variety of critiques and reform proposals reflecting concerns about its legitimacy, transparency, and role in American democracy. Some key criticisms and popular proposals include:

• Perceived Partisanship and Polarization:
  Critics argue the Court has become increasingly politicized, especially after contentious confirmation battles and rulings that closely align with ideological divides. This perception undermines public trust and the Court’s image as an impartial arbiter.

• Lifetime Appointments and Lack of Accountability:
  Lifetime tenure insulates justices but also leads to concerns about lack of democratic accountability and the effects of long-serving justices on evolving societal values.

• Emergency (Shadow) Docket Use:
  The Court’s growing reliance on expedited rulings without full briefing or oral argument has drawn criticism for reducing transparency and limiting public understanding of important decisions.

• Lack of Diversity:
  Although improving, some argue the Court does not sufficiently represent the demographic diversity of the nation in terms of race, gender, and professional background.

• Proposals for Reform:

  • Term Limits or Mandatory Retirement: Introducing fixed terms (e.g., 18 years) to ensure regular turnover and reduce strategic retirements.

  • Court Expansion ("Court Packing"): Increasing the number of justices to balance ideological representation.

  • Reforming the Confirmation Process: Making Senate confirmation less partisan or establishing bipartisan commissions.

  • Transparency Measures: Requiring oral arguments and full briefing in more cases, limiting emergency docket use.

  • Ethics and Recusal Rules: Instituting clearer standards for justice conduct and conflict of interest recusal.

Section 11. Demographics of Recent Federal Judicial Appointments

*Note: Biden's numbers reflect appointments as of mid-2025 and show historic diversity, including nearly 64% women and 63% people of color among confirmed federal judges, with significant representation across Black, Hispanic, Asian American, Native American, and LGBTQ+ appointees.

Clarifying Note:
The Obama administration prioritized increasing racial and gender diversity, notably appointing a high percentage of women and people of color, including Black women. The Trump administration’s appointments reflected lower percentages of women and people of color, with minimal representation of Black women. In contrast, the Biden administration has made historic strides in judicial diversity, appointing the highest percentages of women and people of color, with significant representation of Black, Hispanic, Asian American, Native American, and LGBTQ+ judges.

Section 12. Key Terms and Concepts

Sample Questions Section

Multiple Choice Questions

1. Which of the following courts primarily exercises original jurisdiction?
   A) U.S. Supreme Court
   B) U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals
   C) U.S. District Courts
   D) State Supreme Courts

2. The power of judicial review was established by which Supreme Court case?
   A) Brown v. Board of Education
   B) Marbury v. Madison
   C) McCulloch v. Maryland
   D) Gideon v. Wainwright

3. Which standard of proof is required in criminal cases?
   A) Preponderance of the evidence
   B) Clear and convincing evidence
   C) Beyond a reasonable doubt
   D) Probable cause

4. Which doctrine requires courts to follow previous decisions unless there is a strong reason not to?
   A) Habeas corpus
   B) Stare decisis
   C) Res judicata
   D) Mootness

5. The cert pool refers to:
   A) A group of justices who vote on cases
   B) A collection of petitions for Supreme Court review summarized by clerks
   C) The number of cases the Supreme Court agrees to hear each term
   D) The pool of lawyers eligible to argue before the Supreme Court

6. To grant a writ of certiorari, how many justices must agree?
   A) 5
   B) 6
   C) 4
   D) 3

7. Which of the following is NOT a justiciability requirement?
   A) Standing
   B) Mootness
   C) Political question doctrine
   D) Judicial activism

8. The Rule of Four is designed to:
   A) Ensure the Chief Justice has the final vote
   B) Guarantee minority opinions are heard
   C) Prevent too many cases from reaching the Supreme Court
   D) Allow four justices to grant certiorari

9. What happens during oral arguments before the Supreme Court?
   A) Justices decide the case without hearing from attorneys
   B) Attorneys present their case and answer justices’ questions
   C) Justices vote on the outcome
   D) The Court releases a written opinion

10. Which of the following best describes a dissenting opinion?
    A) The official decision of the Court
    B) An opinion that agrees with the majority but for different reasons
    C) An opinion disagreeing with the majority decision
    D) An unsigned brief decision

11. Which philosophy interprets the Constitution based on the text’s original meaning at the time it was written?
    A) Living Constitution
    B) Judicial activism
    C) Originalism
    D) Stare decisis

12. Which of the following is a criticism of lifetime appointments for Supreme Court justices?
    A) They cause frequent turnover on the bench
    B) They increase political accountability
    C) They reduce democratic accountability
    D) They shorten judicial terms

13. The emergency (shadow) docket is controversial because it:
    A) Delays decisions for years
    B) Limits transparency by issuing rulings without full briefing or oral argument
    C) Only deals with criminal appeals
    D) Requires unanimous decisions

14. Which court is considered the most important appellate court below the Supreme Court because of its caseload and influence?
    A) Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
    B) D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
    C) Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
    D) Federal Circuit Court of Appeals

15. What role does the Chief Justice play in the Supreme Court?
    A) Only votes in case of ties
    B) Assigns majority opinions when in the majority and presides over conferences
    C) Appoints new justices
    D) Can veto other justices’ opinions

16. What is the primary difference between original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction?
    A) Original jurisdiction involves reviewing decisions, appellate jurisdiction involves first hearings
    B) Original jurisdiction involves first hearings, appellate jurisdiction involves reviewing decisions
    C) Both involve first hearings but in different courts
    D) Both involve reviewing decisions but in different courts

17. Which of the following is an example of alternative dispute resolution?
    A) Trial by jury
    B) Mediation
    C) Appeal to a higher court
    D) Issuance of a writ of certiorari

18. What is a political question in the context of justiciability?
    A) A case involving politicians as parties
    B) A case the Court refuses to decide because it belongs to another branch
    C) A case about political campaign laws
    D) A case involving elections

19. The Senate's nuclear option refers to:
    A) Increasing the number of Supreme Court justices
    B) Changing Senate rules to eliminate filibusters for judicial nominees
    C) Impeaching a justice
    D) Confirming justices unanimously

20. Which of the following is NOT a major criticism of the current Supreme Court?
    A) Excessive partisanship
    B) Lack of transparency in some rulings
    C) Term limits for justices
    D) Lack of diversity

Scenario-Based / Data Interpretation Questions

21. A state law restricting abortion is challenged in federal court. The Supreme Court must decide whether to hear the case. Which justiciability criteria must be met before the Court grants certiorari?
    A) Standing, mootness, political question
    B) Judicial activism, standing, mootness
    C) Mootness, stare decisis, political question
    D) Originalism, mootness, political question

22. In a criminal trial, the defendant’s guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If the evidence makes the defendant’s guilt only 60% likely, which verdict is appropriate?
    A) Guilty
    B) Not guilty
    C) Mistrial
    D) Conviction with probation

23. During a Supreme Court private conference, the Chief Justice votes first. If the Chief Justice is in the minority, who votes last?
    A) The most senior associate justice
    B) The most junior associate justice
    C) The Chief Justice again
    D) The justice with the longest tenure

24. A party petitions the Supreme Court to hear a case involving an unsettled question about federal commerce powers. The case has been decided differently by two circuit courts. The Court grants certiorari. Which vote rule allowed this?
    A) Rule of Four
    B) Unanimous consent
    C) Majority vote in the Senate
    D) Simple majority of the House

25. Data from recent appointments show a sharp increase in women and minorities on the federal bench under the Biden administration compared to previous administrations. Which of the following best explains one potential impact?
    A) Decreased public trust in the judiciary
    B) Increased ideological homogeneity
    C) Enhanced representation and perspectives in judicial decision-making
    D) Reduced confirmation hearings in the Senate

Short Answer Questions

26. Explain the difference between original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction, providing an example of when the Supreme Court might exercise each.

27. Describe two major criticisms of the current Supreme Court and one reform proposal for each criticism.

28. How does the doctrine of stare decisis influence Supreme Court decisions? Give one example of when the Court overturned precedent.

Flashcards Section

Flashcard 1
Q: What are the three main levels of the federal court system?
A: District courts, circuit courts of appeals, and the Supreme Court.

Flashcard 2
Q: What type of jurisdiction do district courts primarily have?
A: Original jurisdiction.

Flashcard 3
Q: What is appellate jurisdiction?
A: The authority to review decisions made by lower courts.

Flashcard 4
Q: Which Supreme Court case established judicial review?
A: Marbury v. Madison (1803).

Flashcard 5
Q: What does the doctrine of stare decisis mean?
A: Courts should follow precedent to ensure legal consistency.

Flashcard 6
Q: What is the standard of proof in a civil case?
A: Preponderance of the evidence.

Flashcard 7
Q: What is the standard of proof in a criminal case?
A: Beyond a reasonable doubt.

Flashcard 8
Q: What is the cert pool in the Supreme Court?
A: A group of clerks who summarize petitions for justices' review.

Flashcard 9
Q: What is the Rule of Four?
A: At least four justices must agree to grant certiorari.

Flashcard 10
Q: Name one justiciability requirement.
A: Standing, mootness, or political question doctrine.

Flashcard 11
Q: What is mootness?
A: A case must present an active controversy to be heard.

Flashcard 12
Q: What does the political question doctrine do?
A: It prevents courts from deciding issues more appropriate for other branches.

Flashcard 13
Q: What role does the Chief Justice have in opinion assignment?
A: Assigns majority opinions if in the majority.

Flashcard 14
Q: What is a dissenting opinion?
A: An opinion disagreeing with the majority decision.

Flashcard 15
Q: What is originalism in judicial philosophy?
A: Interpreting the Constitution based on its original meaning or intent.

Flashcard 16
Q: What is the living Constitution theory?
A: The view that constitutional meaning evolves over time.

Flashcard 17
Q: What does judicial activism mean?
A: Willingness to overturn precedent or broadly interpret law.

Flashcard 18
Q: What is judicial restraint?
A: Preference for following precedent and limiting judicial policymaking.

Flashcard 19
Q: What is the emergency (shadow) docket?
A: Expedited rulings issued without full briefing or oral arguments.

Flashcard 20
Q: What is senatorial courtesy?
A: Tradition allowing senators to influence judicial nominations in their states.

Flashcard 21
Q: What is the nuclear option in the Senate?
A: Changing rules to eliminate filibusters for judicial nominees.

Flashcard 22
Q: What is alternative dispute resolution?
A: Methods like settlement, mediation, and arbitration to avoid trials.

Flashcard 23
Q: What does it mean that federal judges have lifetime appointments?
A: They serve during good behavior, promoting judicial independence.

Flashcard 24
Q: Which appellate court is most influential below the Supreme Court?
A: The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Flashcard 25
Q: What is the difference between original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction?
A: Original jurisdiction means hearing a case first; appellate jurisdiction means reviewing lower court decisions.

Flashcard 26
Q: What is standing?
A: The requirement that a party must have a personal stake in the outcome to bring a lawsuit.

Flashcard 27
Q: What is the significance of Brown v. Board of Education?
A: It declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional.

Flashcard 28
Q: How does the Court typically decide which cases to hear?
A: By granting writs of certiorari under the Rule of Four.

Flashcard 29
Q: What is a concurring opinion?
A: An opinion that agrees with the majority outcome but for different reasons.

Flashcard 30
Q: What is the main function of the Supreme Court’s private conferences?
A: Justices discuss cases and vote in order of seniority.

Flashcard 31
Q: How has the use of oral arguments changed since COVID?
A: Traditional time limits have often been ignored or relaxed.

Flashcard 32
Q: Why is judicial independence important?
A: It protects judges from political pressure and ensures impartial decisions.

Flashcard 33
Q: What is the main criticism regarding lifetime appointments?
A: Lack of democratic accountability and long tenures affecting evolving societal values.

Flashcard 34
Q: What is a per curiam opinion?
A: An unsigned, brief decision of the Court.

Flashcard 35
Q: What is the purpose of amicus curiae briefs?
A: To provide additional perspectives and information to the Court from interested parties.

Flashcard 36
Q: What is the role of the Solicitor General in Supreme Court cases?
A: Represents the federal government and often influences which cases the Court hears.

Flashcard 37
Q: What effect has political polarization had on Supreme Court confirmations?
A: It has made confirmations more contentious and partisan.

Flashcard 38
Q: What is the impact of the Senate’s nuclear option?
A: It lowered the threshold for confirming judges, increasing ideological appointments.

Flashcard 39
Q: How does public opinion affect the Supreme Court?
A: The Court sometimes tracks public opinion to maintain legitimacy.

Flashcard 40
Q: What is the significance of the D.C. Circuit Court in judicial appointments?
A: It handles many federal regulatory cases and supplies many future Supreme Court justices.